1

The Interpersonal Cognitive Distortions Scale: development of the scale and

investigation of its psychometric characteristics

Zeynep Hamamcı Şener Büyüköztürk

University of Gaziantep University of Ankara

Summary. In this study, an Interpersonal Cognitive Distortions Scale (ICDS) was

developed to assess cognitive distortions in individuals’ interpersonal relationships. The
research sample comprised 425 university students. Results from the factor analysis were
used to determine three factors in the scale: Interpersonal Rejection, Unrealistic
Relationship Expectation and Interpersonal Misperception. To examine the validity of the
scale, the correlations between the scores on the ICDS and the Automatic Thoughts Scale
(.54), the Irrational Belief Scale (.54), and the Conflict Tendency Scale (.53) were
assessed. The first factor, the second factor and the total scale were found to discriminate
married individuals who have low and high conflict intensity and conflict frequency. The
reliability of the scale was established by performing a test-retest correlation (.74),
Cronbach alpha internal consistency coefficient was .67.

Address correspondence to Assistant. Professor Dr.Zeynep Hamamcı,Gazi

Mahallesi Karacaoğlan Caddesi Şükrü Ercan Apt. A Blok No: 4 Gaziantep/TURKEY, or

e-mail (zeynephamamci@hotmail.com).
 2

According to the cognitive behavioral approach, thoughts that are regarded as

irrational beliefs or cognitive distortions are important factors for the emergence and
continuation of dysfunctional behaviors and psychological disorders (Ellis, 1962; Beck,
1976 ; Beck, Rush, Shaw, & Emery, 1979). Since the 1980s, the literature in this area has
focused on beliefs about relationships; these have been investigated in situations where
people are having extramarital affairs, in couples (Emmelkamp,Krol,Sanderman, &
Ruphan, 1987; Jones & Stanton, 1988; Metts & Cupach, 1990; Möller & Van Zyl, 1991;
Epstein, Baucom, & Rankin, 1993; Haferkamp & Claudia, 1994; Debord, Romans, &
Krieshok, 1996; Möller & Van der Merwe,1997; Möller & De Beer, 1998; Möller, Rabe,
& Nortje, 2001; Addis & Bernard, 2002; Stackert & Bursich, 2003), as well as in mothers,
fathers and children (Bernard & Joyce,1984, Robin & Foster, 1989).
Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy proposes that a disturbed marriage results
when one or both spouses hold irrational beliefs, “irrational” being defined as highly
exaggerated, inappropriately rigid, illogical, and absolutist (Dryden, 1985; DiGuiseppe &
Zee,1986; Ellis, 1986). Ellis, Sichel, Yeager, DiMattia, and DiGuiseppe (1989) have
identified the following irrational beliefs in relationship: (a) demandingness, i.e., dogmatic
“shoulds” about a spouse’s behavior and the nature of marriage; (b) neediness, i.e., spouses
believe that they need to be lovingly mated because otherwise they are worthless; (c)
intolerance, i.e., spouses convince themselves that they can’t stand the problems they
experience or anticipate in their relationships; (d) awfulizing, i.e., being in tolerant when
things are not all they are supposed to be; and (e) damning, i.e., taking the partner’s
feeling as a mirror of one’s lovability and human value.
Derived largely from Beck’s (1976) and Ellis’ (1962) cognitive theories of
maladaptive behavior, Baucom, Epstein, Sayers, and Sher (1989) have described five
categories of cognition that play roles in marital maladjustment: selective attention,
involving each partner’s idiosyncratic perception of events; attributions, partner’s
explanations of events that they notice; expectancies, predictions that each partner makes
about the probabilities that particular events will occur in the future; assumptions, the basic
beliefs that each partner holds about the nature of the word and correlations between
events and characteristics of intimate relationship; and standards, each partner’s beliefs
about the characteristics each thinks a partner or relationship should have.
Based on their clinical observation of individuals and couples seeking counseling
for relationship problems, Kayser and Himle (1994) have identified irrational beliefs
 3

about intimacy. They are summarized as follows: (a) if I become close to someone, he or
she leave me; (b) if I have any conflict in a relationship it can’t be intimate; (c) I will
lose all personal control and power in relationships, if I am intimate; (d) I am solely
responsible for the lack of intimacy in my relationships; (e) I must do everything my
partner wants in order to be a truly intimate person, and to achieve intimacy; (f) If I am a
good father or good mother and wife I will get intimacy in return; (g) I must always have
a strong loving feeling before I can be intimate; (h) I can’t experience intimacy without
having sex in a relationship.
The scales currently used for evaluating cognitive distortions in interpersonal
relationships have been developed for people involved in romantic affairs. One inventory
which is often used is the Relationship Beliefs Inventory (Eidelson & Epstein, 1982),
which assesses cognitive distortions in relation to the following subscales: (a)
Disagreement is destructive; (b) Misreading is expected; (c) Partners cannot change; (d)
Sexual perfectionism; (e) Sexes are different. Another scale is the Relationship Beliefs
Questionnaire (Romans & DeBord, 1995). This scale measures cognitive distortions in
relation to the following sub-dimensions: (1) we should be open and honest with each other
at all times; (2) we should be able to read each other's minds; (3) we should do everything
together; (4) we should be able to meet each other's needs; (5) we should be willing and
able to change for each other; (6) things should be always be perfect between us; (7) good
relationships should be easy to maintain; (8) one can never be complete without being
involved in a romantic relationship; (9) romantic idealism. Similarly, the Family Beliefs
Inventory (Roehling & Robin, 1986) was developed to measure cognitive distortions in
mothers, fathers and adolescents with respect to their relationships. On this scale, cognitive
distortions of mothers and adolescents are measured separately. The sub-dimensions for
mothers and fathers are ruination, obedience, perfectionism, malicious intent, approval,
and self-blame, while for adolescents the sub-dimensions are ruination, unfairness,
autonomy, and approval.
These scales were developed to evaluate cognitive distortions adopted by
individuals in their particular relationships. However, these individuals may also have
cognitive distortions, which could lead them to generalize about every kind of relationship
they experience. For example, an individual may adopt a highly idealistic belief, such as “I
want everyone that I am in contact with to share his or her thoughts and feelings with me,”
or else they may adopt a belief that relies on reading another person’s mind, such as “I can
understand from looking into a person’s eyes what he or she feels.”
 4

To date, no scale has been described in the literature that could measure cognitive
distortions that occur in all types of relationships. The only scale developed in this field is
the Relationship Beliefs Scale (Fletcher & Kininmonth, 1992). However, this scale does
not measure cognitive distortions, but rather measures the thoughts of individuals
regarding issues of communication, love, trust, independence, support, acceptance, sex and
equity. The theoretical basis for this scale is derived from principles of social psychology.
The aim of this study is to develop a scale that does not measure specific cognitive
distortions displayed by individuals in relationships with particular persons, but rather,
general cognitive distortions that individuals display across all their relationships. Further,
the study aims to investigate the psychometric characteristics of this scale. This study
investigated the factor structure in the ICDS scale, test-retest correlation, item-total
correlations, internal consistency, and criterion-based validity.
Method
Participants
The research sample was comprised of 425 students (288 women and 139 men)
studying in three different universities in Ankara, Turkey. The mean age of the participants
was 21.5 (SD=1.75, range= 18 to 31). Among these students, 137 (32.2%) were studying in
the second year and 288 (67.8%) were studying in the third year of university. The scales
were distributed to students during their classes and were completed in one session.
Measures
Conflict Tendency Scale (Dökmen, 1986). This scale was developed to measure an
individual’s tendency towards conflicts in communication, and is based on the types of
conflict addressed by the model of Harary and Batell (1981). The scale is comprised of 10
sub-dimensions, including Active conflict, Passive conflict, Existence conflict, Total
refusal conflict, Bias conflict, Density conflict, Active-bias conflict, Passive total refusal
conflict, Humanistic approach and Personal characteristics. Active conflict occurs in the
situation which two people do not like and are angry with each other by criticizing, not
listening and caring about what the other says. Passive conflict is the situation in which
two people have no communication. Existence conflict occurs in a situation where the
person gives an irrelevant message as a response to what the other says because of not
listening or misunderstanding. Total refusal conflict occurs when the person rejects the
idea completely and claims the opposite. In Bias conflict, the person starts a discussion
with prejudice about any topic. Density conflict is the situation in which two people have
partial agreement on their views. In Active-bias conflict, two people do not like each other
 5

and have different points of view. Passive total refusal conflict occurs when two people
blame each other and cut communication between them. Humanistic approach suggests
that people with positive emotions taword others have fewer conflicts than those with
negative emotions. Personal characteristics propose that some personal characteristics
cause communication conflict. The scale contains 53 statements, of which 31 are positive
and 22 are negative. The scale’s test-retest correlation is .89. For the validity of the scale, a
free discussion topic was given to students and all dialogues were recorded. Experts
listened to recorded dialogues and scored them for conflict type. Correlations were
calculated between the scores obtained from experts and the Conflict Tendency Scale.
Experts’ ratings were correlated with six of the 10 subscales. The following correlations
were obtained: Active conflict .73; Existence conflict .88; Total refusal conflict .73; Active
Bias conflict .64, Density conflict .69; and Bias conflict .82.
Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire (Aydın & Aydın,1990; Şahin & Şahin, 1992).
This scale is the Turkish version of the Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire developed by
Hollan and Kendall (1980). This scale was used to assess automatic thoughts related to
depression. It is made up of 30 items. Cronbach alpha coefficient of internal consistency
was .93 (Şahin & Şahin, 1992) The coefficient obtained from a sample group of 114
individuals of whom 57 were depressed and 57 non-depressed was .95 (Aydın & Aydın,
1990). For a student group, the test-retest reliability coefficient for the scale was .77
(Aydın & Aydın, 1990). Correlations between the Automatic Thoughts Scale and the
Turkish version of the Beck Depression Inventory were .75 (Şahin & Şahin, 1992) and .70
(Aydın & Aydın,1990). It was found that the scale discriminated between groups with and
without depression (Aydın & Aydın, 1990).
Irrational Beliefs Scale (Türküm, 2003). This scale was used to measure irrational
beliefs of adults. There are 15 items under the three subdimensions including Approval,
Human relations and Self. Alpha coefficient of internal consistency of the scale
administered to 498 university students was .75. Test-retest reliability coefficient for the
scale was found .81 over a 10-week interval. The correlation between the scale and the
Turkish version of the Beck Depression Inventory was .16. The correlations between the
scale and the Turkish version of the Dysfunctional Attitude Scale was .40.

Married Life Questionnaire (Tezer, 1986). This scale was developed to measure
conflict behaviors between married individuals. The scale provides four different scores;
Conflict Intensity, Conflict Frequency, Stress Level and Loading on himself/herself and
 6

spouse of incidents involving conflict. The Conflict Frequency score indicates the number
of conflicts spouses experience and the Conflict Intensity score indicates the intensity of
couples’ conflicts. The scale discriminated married and divorced people in terms of the
number of conflicts and conflict intensity. The test-retest reliability coefficient for Conflict
Frequency was .75 for over a three-month interval, and for Conflict Intensity .39.
Interpersonal Cognitive Distortions Scale. This scale measures cognitive
distortions in individuals who are in relationships . The scale is comprised of 19 statements
related to cognitive distortion. The scale uses a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1=
I strongly disagree to 5=I strongly agree. High scores represent a high level of cognitive
distortion in personal relationships.

Results
ICDS Development
During the development of the scale, 30 university students from different classes
were asked to write sentences using words that would remind them of relationships (like
humans, close relations, in a relationship) on an open-ended form. Using the sentences
obtained from students and the classifications related to relationships beliefs from the
literature (Baucom et al.,1989; Ellis et al., 1989; Kayser & Himle,1994) and Beck’s
definitions of cognitive errors (DeRubeis, Tang, & Beck, 2001) 71 distorted statements
were developed. One psychiatrist, two clinical psychologists and two counselors evaluated
the items in order to assess whether items include cognitive distortions or not. When they
thought that an item included a cognitive distortion about relationships, they described the
appropriateness of items using a 3-point Likert-type scale with anchors 3= appropriate, 2=
partially appropriate and 1= not appropriate. After evaluation, 45 items with an average
rating above were included in the scale.

Factor Structure of the ICDS

Principal components analysis (PCA) was used to examine the factor structure in
the ICDS. This is a statistical technique for a single set of variables when the researcher is
interested in discovering which variables in the set form coherent subsets that are relatively
independent of one another (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). In this analysis, factor loadings
which are greater than .6 are generally considered high, and moderately high if they are
above .3 (Kline, 2000). According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2001), only variables with
loadings of .32 and above are interpreted. In this study, only variables that had factor
 7

loadings greater than .3 were included. The results showed that items in the scale have
high loadings on multiple factors. However, in attempting to create simple structures that
can be defined by factor analysis, it is necessary to isolate items with high loadings on
one factor only (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Therefore, items which had high loadings on
more than one factor were not included in the scale. Consequently, in choosing items, the
difference between the loading values of the items in the factors and other factor loading
values was limited to a maximum of .20.
Principal components analysis was conducted to determine the factor structure of
the ICDS and revealed that there were 16 factors whose eigenvalues were > 1, explaining
60.2% of the variance. In order to observe the factor structure of the scale more clearly and
decrease the correlation between the factors, Principal Component Analysis was conducted
again using varimax rotation. Following this analysis, the items that had low loading
values (<.30 loading) ) on single factors or high loading values on more than one factor
were removed from the scale, and the analysis was then repeated. At the conclusion of
analysis, after 20 items were removed from the scale, the scale was made up of 25 items in
four factors. However, four of the five items making up the fourth dimension overlapped
with the other factors in terms of content. One item containing a realistic statement (not a
cognitive distortion) in the second factor was also observed. Following expert opinion after
the conclusion of the analysis, the items in the fourth factor and an item in the second
factor which did not contain cognitive distortions were removed from the scale. As a result,
a scale of three factors comprising 19 items featuring cognitive distortions was obtained.
The three factors of the ICDS were named in accordance with the content of the
items in the factors; the first factor explaining 15.5% of the variance with eight items, the
second factor explaining 13.1% of the variance and containing eight items, and the third
factor explaining 9.5% of the variance with three items were respectively labeled
Interpersonal Rejection, Unrealistic Relationship Expectation and Interpersonal
Misperception. Table 1 presents the item factor loadings for the three factors determined
through the factor analysis.
Item Analysis
The correlation values between each item’s factor and other factors were measured
(Table 2). The corrected item-total correlations ranged from .49 to .20, and bivariate
correlations between the items and other factors ranged from .05 to .20. To control for
Type I error across correlations, the alpha level of significance was adjusted from .05
from to .0008 according to Bonferroni correction. This more conservative alpha level was
 8

derived by dividing the standard alpha level (.05) by the total number of comparisons
made (Green, Salkind, & Akey,1997).
Correlations between the factors
Table 3 presents the correlations measured between the factors of the scale, the
average scores on the factors, and standard deviations. The bivariate correlations between
the different factors of the ICDS ranged between .07 and .15, which shows that the
correlations between the factors are very low.
Reliability of the ICDS
The reliability of the scale was measured through internal consistency and the test-
retest method. The correlation coefficients, measured for total scale and each dimension
and test-retest coefficients over a 15-day interval were calculated. In addition, the sample
was randomly split using the number of sample into two separate files. Then, correlation
coefficients was calculated for the first and second halves of the sample. Cronbach alphas
are presented in Table 4.
Principal Component Analysis was performed both on the first and second halves
of the sample after items were eliminated. The results show that three factors of the scale
were extracted for both samples. The item factor loadings for the factors on the first half of
the sample ranged from .38 to .66 for Interpersonal Rejection, .36 to .65 for Unrealistic
Relationship Expectation and .60 to .81 for Interpersonal Misperception, respectively. The
explained total variance on the first half of the sample was 39.9% for the three factors: 17.4
% for Interpersonal Rejection, 12.8% for Unrealistic Relationship Expectation, and 9.6%
for Interpersonal Misperception.
The item-factor loadings for the factors on the second half of sample ranged from
.45 to .63 for Interpersonal Rejection, .35 to .60 for Unrealistic Relationship Expectation
and .28 to .83 for Interpersonal Misperception, respectively. The explained total variances
on the second half of the sample was 37.9% for the three factors: 15.8 % for Interpersonal
Rejection, 12.1% for Unrealistic Relationship Expectation, and 9.8% for Interpersonal
Misperception .
Also, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to examine if there was
the defined model with three factors using LISREL 8.30 . CFA produces many indicators
of the model fit. Some of these are Chi-Square Goodness of Fit (2), Goodness of Fit Index
(GFI), Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI), Root Mean Square Residuals (RMR),
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) (Mars & Hocevar, 1988; Jöreskog &
Sorbom, 1993). For acceptablefit the ratio 2/df should be below 5, GFI and AGFI above
 9

0.90, and RMR and RMSEA below 0.05. The results of CFA in the Table 5 revealed that
proposed model fits the data well enough for both samples.
Validity of the ICDS
The validity of the scale was measured by the correlation between the scores on the
ICDS and the Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire (N=80) which measures automatic
thoughts related to depression. In order to provide more data about validity of the scale,
the correlation between ICDS and the Irrational Beliefs Scale (N= 80) measuring general
beliefs, was calculated. Moreover, since we expected that if there were more cognitive
distortions related to relationships, there would be more tendency to conflict for
individuals, the correlation between the ICDS and the Conflict Tendency Scale (N=85)
was calculated. Pearson correlations are presented in Table 6.

In order to provide more evidence of validity, the Married Life Questionnaire was
administered 158 married individuals (79 women, 72 men and 7 unknown). The mean of
ICDS scores were compared for groups with High and Low Conflict Frequency and
Conflict Intensity. Low and High Conflict Frequency and Conflict Intensity groups were
defined by a median splits on the scores (Median for Conflict Frequency = 16.00, Median
for Conflict Intensity =24.50). The group of couples with High Conflict Frequency scored
significantly lower on Interpersonal Rejection (t=1.98, p<.05), Unrealistic Relationship
Expectation (t=5.15, p<.05) and the Total ICDS (t=2.37, p<.05) but not on Interpersonal
Misperception (t=0.82, p>.05) of the ICDS than the group of couples with Low Conflict
Frequency. The group of couples with High Conflict Intensity had significantly lower
scores on Interpersonal Rejection (t=2.59, p<.05), Unrealistic Relationship Expectation
(t=2.10, p<.05), and the Total ICDS (t=2.56, p<.05) the but not on Interpersonal
Misperception (t=0.43, p>.05), than the group of couples with Low Conflict Intensity.

Discussion
The current study investigated the psychometric characteristics of the ICDS. The
factor analysis showed that the scale could be defined by a three-factor structure. The first
factor, labeled Interpersonal Rejection, comprised eight items. This factor showed that the
individuals in question have negative attitudes toward others. In addition, if they are very
close to others in their relationships, this situation can have negative consequences. The
second factor, Unrealistic Relationship Expectation, comprised eight items and implies that
the individuals have high expectations in their relationships concerning both their own
 10

behavior and the behavior of others. The third factor, Interpersonal Misperception,
comprised three items. This items of the scale imply the idea of attempting to understand
interpersonal relationships, feelings and thoughts using unrealistic methods.
The rotated factor loadings for the 19 items of the ICDS show high loading on their
own factors and low loading on the other factors. In orthogonal rotations the factors are
rotated by using the same angles. This means that factors would be uncorrelated. This
result suggest that each of these factors are relatively independent from one another and
may measure different aspects of a construct “cognitive distortions related to relationships”
(Kline, 2000). The variances explained by the three factors of the scale was 38.2% and
the variance not explained 63%. This result is considered as a limitation of the scale.
In the current study, it was found a moderate correlation between the ICDS and the
Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire. But the latter was designed to measure automatic
thoughts related to depression. For this reason, the correlation between the ICDS and the
Irrational Beliefs Scale was examined and a moderate correlation was found. The
correlation between the ICDS and Conflict Tendency Scale the demonstrates that the ICDS
has criterion-related validity. The correlations between Interpersonal Misperception, the,
Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire, the Irrational Beliefs Scale and the Conflict Tendency
Scale were found to be lower than correlations with Interpersonal Rejection and Unrealistic
Relationship Expectation.
Except for Interpersonal Misperception, the Total ICDS score and other factor
scores discriminated married individuals with High and Low Conflict Frequency and
Intensity. This result can be considered another evidence of validity of the ICDS.
The test-retest correlation of the ICDS was above .70 for the Total scale and for
each factor, which shows that the scale is stable over time. Cronbach alpha for Unrealistic
Relationship Expectation was relatively low, but acceptable due to the fact that the test-
retest correlations are high. Cronbach alpha for Interpersonal Misperception was not
acceptable, the items sharing only 9.5% of their variance, possibly due to the small
number of items.
This study demonstrates that the ICDS is a valid and reliable for Interpersonal
Rejection and Unrealistic Relationship Expectation. But Interpersonal Misperception is not
reliable and requires more development. This can be seen to be limitation of this study.
Another limitation of this study was that the scale was developed on university students.
The results must not be generalized to all individuals with relationship problems. It will
require further validation of the measure on different groups.
 11

References

Addis, J., & Bernard, M. E. (2002) Marital adjustment and irrational beliefs.

Journal of Rational Emotive and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, 20, 3-13.

Aydın, G., & Aydın, O. (1990) Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of

Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire. The Turkish Psychology Journal, 7, 51-57.

Baucom, D. H., Epstein, N., Sayers, S., & Sher, T. S. (1989) The role of cognition

in marital relationships: definitional, methodological and conceptual issues. Journal of

Counseling and Clinical Journal, 57, 31-38.

Beck, A. (1976) Cognitive therapy and emotional disorder. New York: Basic

Books.

Beck, A. T., Rush, A., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979) Cognitive therapy in

depression. New York: Guilford.

Bernard, M. E., & Joyce. M. R. (1984) Rational emotive therapy with children and

adolescent. New York :Wiley.

Debord, J., Romans, S. C., & Krieshok, T. (1996) Predictions dyadic adjustment

from general and relationships specific beliefs. Journal of Psychology, 130, 263-280.

DeRubeis, R. J., Tang, T. Z. & Beck, A. (2001) Cognitive therapy. In K. S. Dobson

(Ed.), The handbook of cognitive behavioral therapies pp.3-39. New York: Guilford.

DiGuiseppe, R., & Zee, C.(1986) A rational emotive theory of marital

dysfunction and marital therapy. Journal of Rational Emotive Therapy, 4, 22-37.

 12

Dökmen, Ü. (1986) [Yüz ifadeleri konusunda verilen eğitimin duygusal yüz

ifadelerini teşhis becerisi ve iletişim çatışmalarına girme eğilimlerine etkisi [The effect of

education about facial expression on the ability to recognize facial expression and the

tendency to experience communication conflict].Unpublished doctorate dissertation.

Ankara Üniversitesi.

Dryden,W. (1985) Marital therapy: the rational-emotive approach. In W. Dryden

(ed.), Marital therapy in Britain pp.195-221. London: Harper & Row.

Ellis, A. (1962) Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. Secaucus, NJ: Lyle Stuart .

Ellis, A. (1986) Rational emotive therapy applied to relationships therapy. Journal

of Rational Emotive Therapy, 4, 14-21.

Ellis, A., Sichel, J., Yeager, R., DiMattia, D., & DiGuiseppe, R. (1989) Rational

emotive couples therapy. New York : Pergmanon

Eidelson, R. J., & Epstein, N. (1982) Cognition and relationships maladjustment:

Development of a measure of dysfunctional relationships beliefs. Journal of Counseling

and Clinical Psychology, 50, 715-720.

Emmelkamp, P. G., Krol, B., Sanderman, R., & Ruphan, M. (1987) The

assessment of relationships beliefs in marital context. Personality and Individual

Differences, 8, 775-780.

Epstein, N., Baucom., D. H., & Rankin, L. A. (1993) Treatment of marital conflict:

a cognitive behavioral approach. Clinical Psychology Review, 13 ,45-57.

Fletcher, G. J., & Kininmonth, L. A. (1992) Measuring relationships beliefs: an

individual differences scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 371-379.

Green, S. B., Salkind, N. J., & Akey. T. M (1997) Using SPSS for Windows:

analyzing and understanding data. Upper Saddle River, N J : Prenctice Hall.

 13

Haferkamp, C .J., & Claudia, E.(1994) Dysfunctional beliefs, self monitoring, and

marital conflict. Current Psychology, 13, 248-263.

Harary, F., & Batell, M. F. (1981) Communication and conflict. Human Relation,

34, 633-641.

Hollan, S. D., & Kendall, P. C. (1980) Cognitive self-statements in depression:

Development of an Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and Research,

4, 383-395.

Jones, E. M., & Stanton, A .L. (1988) Dysfunctional beliefs, beliefs similarity, and

marital distress: a comparison models. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 7, 1-14.

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993) LISREL 8: structural equation modeling

with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kayser, K., & Himle, D. P. (1994) Dysfunctional beliefs about intimacy. Journal

of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 8, 127-139.

Kline, P. (2000) An easy guide to factor analysis. New York: Routledge.

Mars, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1988) A new more powerful approach to multitrait-

multimethod analyses: application of second-order confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 73, 107-117.

Metts. S., & Cupach, W. R. (1990) The influence of relation beliefs and problem

solving responses on satisfaction in romantic relationships. Human Communication

Research, 17, 170-185.

Möller, A. T., & De Beer, Z. C. (1998) Irrational beliefs and marital conflict.

Psychological Reports, 82, 155-190.

Möller, A. T., Rabe, H. M., & Nortje, C. (2001) Dysfunctional beliefs and marital

conflict in distressed and nondistressed married individuals. Journal of Rational Emotive

and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, 19, 259-270.

 14

Möller, A. T., & Van der Merwe, J. D. (1997) Irrational beliefs, interpersonal

perception and marital adjustment. Journal of Rational Emotive and Cognitive Behavioral

Therapy, 15, 260-290.

Möller,A. T., & Van Zyl, P. D. (1991) Relationships beliefs, interpersonal

perception and marriage adjustment .Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47, 28-33.

Robin, A., & Foster, S. L (1989) Negotiating parent-adolescent conflict :

behavioral systems approach. New York: Guilford.

Roehling, P., & Robin, A. L. (1986) Development and validation of Family

Beliefs Inventory: a measure of unrealistic beliefs among parents and adolescents. Journal

of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 54, 693-697.

Romans, J. S., & DeBord, J. (1995) Development of the Relationship Beliefs

Questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 76, 1248-1251.

Şahin, N. H. & Şahin, N. (1992) Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of

Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48, 334-340.

Stackert, R., & Bursich, K (2003) Why am I unsatisfied ? Adult attachment still,

gendered irrational relationships beliefs, and young adult romantic relationship

satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1419-1429.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001) Using multivariate statistics (4th edition)

Boston, M.A: Allyn & Bacon.

Tezer, E. (1986) Evli eşler arasındaki çatışma davranışları Yayımlanmamış

Doktora Tezi. [Conflict behaviors among married individuals]. Unpublished doctorate

dissertation, Hacettepe Üniveristesi.

Türküm, S. (2003) The development of Irrational Beliefs Scale. Journal of Turkish

Counseling and Guidance, 19, 41-47.

 15

Table 1. Factor Loadings of Final 19 Items of the ICDS

Factor/Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Interpersonal Rejection
02. People do not understand me .62 .14 .10
19. It is always useful to keep superficial .61 -.16 -.01
our relationships with others
13. It is beneficial to be alert to people .61 .11 .23
around us
12. I believe that people do not accept me .61 .16 -.19
when I am in a social environment
04. There are no real friends in this life .60 -.12 .16
03. I believe that I will be rejected if I .56 .21 -.12
reveal my feelings and thoughts to people
around me
10. People do not keep their promises .53 .09 .04
01. Being intimate with people usually .44 .12 .18
creates problems

Unrealistic Relationship Expectation

17. I always want people to show .10 .62 -.03
understanding to me
09. To feel good, other peoples’ thoughts .16 .59 .08
and feelings about me should be positive
05. I want people that I am in contact with -.01 .57 .21
to share their feelings and thoughts with
me
16. I always want somebody to be around -.16 .60 -.01
me
11. I should always belong to a social -.17 .53 .02
group
18. People should meet each others’ .03 .44 .23
expectations in relationships
14. I should be tolerant of others in order .25 .44 -.04
not to offend them
15. I should behave as others want me to .28 .42 -.15
behave in order to make them happy

Interpersonal Misperception
07. I feel what they think even if .02 -.02 .81
people do not show it
06. I understand from someone’s .06 .03 .81
eyes what kind of a person they
are
08.Other people should know .08 .06 .40
what I think even if I do not
reveal my thoughts
TOTAL VARIANCE 38.03 15.51 13.05 9.47
 16

Table 2. Item-Total Correlations Within ICDS Factors

Factor/Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Interpersonal Rejection

02. People do not understand me .47* .16 .15

19. It is always useful to keep superficial .44* -.03 .00
our relationships with others
13. It is beneficial to be alert to people .49* .18 .13
around us
12. I believe that people do not accept me .42* .15 .00
when I am in a social environment
04. There are no real friends in this life .44* -.01 .15
03. I believe that I will be rejected if I .41* .18 .00
reveal my feelings and thoughts to people
around me
10. People do not keep their promises .38* .12 .08
01. Being intimate with people usually .31* .00 .08
creates problems

Unrealistic Relationship Expectation

17. I always want people to show .12 .44* -01
understanding to me
09. To feel good, other peoples’ thoughts .17 .41* .06
and feelings about me should be positive
05. I want people that I am in contact with .06 .38* .12
to share their feelings and thoughts with
me
16. I always want somebody to be around -.04 .38* -.01
me
11. I should always belong to a social -.05 .31* -.03
group
18. People should meet each others’ .08 .28 .10
expectations in relationships
14. I should be tolerant of others in order .19 .30* .04
not to offend them
15. I should behave as others want me to .20 .27* .02
behave in order to make them happy

Interpersonal Misperception
07. I feel what they think even if people .08 .00 .40*
do not show it
06. I understand from someone’s eyes .12 .06 .35*
what kind of a person they are
08. Other people should know what I think .08 .06 .20
even if I do not reveal my thoughts
 17

Table 3. The Correlations Between Factors of the ICDS with Means and
Standard Deviations

Factor M SD 1. 2.
1. Interpersonal Rejection 19.09 5.17
2. Unrealistic Relationship Expectation 23.56 4.92 .15
3. Interpersonal Misperception 8.78 3.28 .13 .07
 18

Table 4. Reliability Coefficients of ICDS Factors

Overall 1st half of 2st half of Test-

(N=425) sample sample retest
(N=212) (N=212)
Total ICDS .67 .63 .72 .74

1. Interpersonal Rejection .73 .71 .75 .70

2. Unrealistic Relation Expectation .66 .65 .67 .76
3. Interpersonal Misperception .43 .39 .56 .74
Cronbach Alphas
 19

Table 5. The Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis on the ICDS

Indices 1st half of sample 2st half of sample

(N= 212 ) (N= 213 )

2 (df) 288.99*** (149) 280*** (149)

2/df 1.94 1.88

GFI 0.87 0.88

AGFI 0.84 0.84

RMR 0.09 0.12

RMSEA 0.06 0.06

 20

Table 6. Pearson Correlations of ICDS with Related Scales

Irrational Beliefs Automatic Conflict Tendency
Scale Thoughts Scale Scale
Total ICDS .54‡ .53‡ .53‡
Interpersonal Rejection .36‡ .51‡ .47‡
Unrealistic Relationship Expectation .34† .94‡ .32
Interpersonal Misperception .26* .28† .17†
*p<.05 †p<.01 ‡
p<.001